Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Wes, is there any reason why pilots manuals forbid snap or flick rolls when they seem to be perfectly capable of doing them? Is it just "playing safe"
Thanks Biff, the Spitfire manual forbids them but I read thispbehn,
The OV-10 Bronco forbade them although I knew guys who did them. My bet would be the reasons varied by plane. The Eagle doesn't like negative G flight for other than short periods. The Bronco didn't like hammerhead stalls, caused the exhaust "pipe" to come lose if you did a tail slide (know someone who did that to), however it's a non-event in the Eagle. Snap rolls put a lot of stress on a plane and its parts and would guess most planes aren't stressed for doing that repeatedly.
Cheers,
Biff
Not to ridicule or limit the achievements of the brave men who flew the Lightning in combat, but this type of inflammatory rhetoric is commonplace when your favorite aircraft doesn't have the stats to back up your wild claims. But I guess it's a far easier task to minimize the officially recognized victory record of both the Mustang and Hellcat than to actually bring real statistics to support your claims. That the Lightning some how singlehandedly cleared the sky of all seasoned German and Japanese pilots, only to leave the "dregs" to the two highest scoring American fighter aircraft of the war, sounds like sour grapes to me.....
Maybe this was the inspiration behind the closing scene in the movie "Dunkirk", where the Spitfire carries on fighting even after its fuel has run out, and shoots down the Stuka before carrying on to a low pass over the troops and a deadstick landing on the sand.If you shut the throttle in a Hurricane you'd come to a grinding halt; in a Spitfire you just go whistling on.
Biff pretty well covers it here, but I might add that depending on speed and configuration, some a/c could diverge into an ass-over-teakettle tumble that would put stresses on various parts unanticipated by the designers. While not necessarily leading to immediate collapse, undetected damage could (and did) start fatigue cracking and eventual catastrophic failure.pbehn,
The OV-10 Bronco forbade them although I knew guys who did them. My bet would be the reasons varied by plane. The Eagle doesn't like negative G flight for other than short periods. The Bronco didn't like hammerhead stalls, caused the exhaust "pipe" to come lose if you did a tail slide (know someone who did that to), however it's a non-event in the Eagle. Snap rolls put a lot of stress on a plane and its parts and would guess most planes aren't stressed for doing that repeatedly.
Cheers,
Biff
Maybe, but movie makers always want everything to be like a "Die Hard" movie. I didn't see the movie but read about that scene. If all pilots ran out of fuel over Dunkerque the RAF would have lost most of its fighters in a day. There was a Spitfire lost and recovered from the beach at Dunkerque then restored, but it was piloted by a stockbroker and hit by return fire from a Dornier which doesn't suit todays "narrative".Maybe this was the inspiration behind the closing scene in the movie "Dunkirk", where the Spitfire carries on fighting even after its fuel has run out, and shoots down the Stuka before carrying on to a low pass over the troops and a deadstick landing on the sand.
The subject of the post is "The Most Underrated Plane of World War Two". Your response pretty much says it all about the attitude concerning the P-38.
Using the conventional definition of "under-rated," the P-38 wasn't that.
My shortlist :F2A, Bf-110, I-153, I-16, Il-4, Ki-43, P-39, C-47.In contrast to the other topic what do you think the most underrated aircraft of WW2 was?
Unlike yourself, nobody here is trying to cheapen the heroism and sacrifices that these men displayed during war. But you Sir decided to sh--t on those that happened to fly a different aircraft than the one you so admire. That's where I take issue with your position. I for one am as proud an American as you will find and I'm insulted by your demeaning rhetoric so I will end our conversation hence forth before this turns into another locked thread, all because it devolved into a war of wits between two seemingly grown men who didn't know when to shut their big traps. Good day to you!
"Claiming that it's "underrated" because it's true legacy was somehow stolen by the Mustang and Hellcat is pure idiocy and from that point forward one's credibility has to be seriously questioned. To me it smells like trolling and we all know what that sort of behavior normally leads to here....."
Combat radius helps to win air wars. This simple observation sums up much of what distinguished the P-38 from its contemporaries, and also why this aircraft must be considered the single most significant fighter in the US inventory in W.W.II. The critical air battles, when Allied strength was still building up and Axis strength was at its peak, were fought by the P-38 force, deep inside hostile airspace against a numerically superior enemy.
All other parameters being equal, it was the radius of the Lightning which allowed the ETO daylight bombing offensive to succeed at a time when losses were high and long term success questionable. By the time Mustang numbers built up in the ETO, the Luftwaffe had already crossed the knee in the Lanchesterian attrition war curve and defeat was inevitable. While the much admired P-51 made a critical contribution, it is worth noting that cumulative deployments of the Merlin powered P-51 matched the P-38 only as late as the end of 1944, which is clearly at odds with the established mythology. With the 8th AF, the long range escort load was shared equally by the P-38 and P-51 throughout the decisive first half of 1944.
In the Pacific, where land based air grappled with the Japanese, the Lightning was the foremost fighter, destroying more Japanese aircraft than any other Allied fighter. The air battles over New Guinea, the Solomons, the invasion of the Phillipines and later Okinawa were all campaigns where the radius and performance of the P-38 were fundamental advantages over Japanese air assets.
The perception of the P-38 as a mediocre aircraft is clearly the result of wartime propaganda run unchecked, and lay interpretations of period statements. The historical record clearly indicates that the big twin was there when it really mattered and there can be no greater a compliment for its designers. It was the aircraft which allowed the USAAF to play an offensive strategy almost from the very beginning of combat operations.
The P-38 was without doubt the strategically most important American fighter of World War II.
The P-38 began escorting 8th AAF bombers just 6-7 weeks before the P-51 entered service in the ETO. There only one group, the 55th, flying those early escort missions, so it seems rather unlikely that the Lightning would have had a significant impact before the Mustangs show up.
The P-38 began escorting 8th AAF bombers just 6-7 weeks before the P-51 entered service in the ETO. There only one group, the 55th, flying those early escort missions, so it seems rather unlikely that the Lightning would have had a significant impact before the Mustangs show up.